Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mini Ladd (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Ladd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability under WP:GNG. Even ignoring his recent work (a channel with 4.5m subscribers failing to get 100k views per video, and his last upload was 5 months ago), the article made it clear for almost 2 years that there's a lack of secondary sources in the article, and the lack of a biography, personal life, or even the bare minimum acknowledgement of his pedophilia scandal indicates that there's very few reputable secondary sources covering him, thus failing the notability guideline. Redolta📱 ^Contribs 09:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've thought about nominating this article for deletion before, mostly because of the lack of secondary coverage. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTuber, undersourced. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 4 is a list and brief coverage, rest aren't RS. Coverage seems to be about him messaging fans that were underage and an "I'm sorry" video that fell flat with the public. I'm not sure either of these makes this individual notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Initially was on the Delete side, but came across several sources that may prove notability. First, I found a scholarly source that analyzes his controversy - looking at the abstract alone it seems he is the primary topic. Second off, I do see some newspapers that also write about him significantly, such as this News Letter article and the already cited Derry Journal and Derry Now pieces. Finally, The Sunday Times listicle is a pretty solid claim of importance, and is over 100 words, making it a bit more than trivial. I think this in total should be enough to pass WP:BASIC. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even taking into account the source mentioned above, the use of it will be problematic. He hasn't been convicted of any crime, hasn't even been charged with one, and to the best of my knowledge hasn't even had a formal police complaint made against him. So any use of that source for in-depth coverage of the allegations causes WP:UNDUE and, if we're saying that source makes him notable, WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL problems, as if the majority of the article is about things he's never been charged or convicted of there's problems. FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.